Want ONE simple law to help curb mass-shootings?

[Auld Phart]

Why do I even bother answering idiots?

Idiocrat courtesy?

Nat's motto

 

[NightFox]

No wondering to it, anyone with a modicum of common sense can see why, because of all the douche bags in this Country that file idiotic lawsuits.

So, borrowing from one of your fellow dimwits' comparison, HAMMER manufacturers should ask for a special law from congress to help protect them from lawsuits...Right?

I dunno are hammer manufacturers getting sued by morons wanting to blame them because some psychopath killed their kid with a hammer? Turn your common sense on for a minute, this isn't rocket science....

 

[B. Kidd]

Unfortunately, the technology is still pretty lame on fingerprint security for gun users. If technology could work out the bugs and make it at least 97% fail safe, it could be one alternative.
Intelligun - Fingerprint security - The Firearm Blog

You need your gun,.
Your gun goes down,.
Your wife has a gun but you do not have her fingerprints.
What then?

Have your own back-up weapon........duh!!!

Intelligun will never be anything but a conversation piece.

Reliable biometrics with guns is still in the early stages. When it is worked out, and it will be, should be the way to go.

Intelligun isn't biometric.

I have a biometric safe and it takes about three tries before I can successfully swipe my finger to open it. If it was a gun and needed in a split second, I'd been dead.

It's good idea, just not practical and no one would rely on it to save their life.

As for intelligun, did you know if the battery goes dead, your gun locks up. it essentially becomes a club.

I never advocated using intelligun because it is below the curve in reliability. All I am suggesting is that if and when biometrics becomes reliable, it could be a viable alternative to putting gun control into the hands of big Gov't.

 

[Rustic]

Sooooooo, you brilliant right wingers, the question remains.....

WHY DID GUN MANUFACTURERS FELT THE NEED TO HAVE A SPECIAL LAW PASSED JUST FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION FROM BEING SUED?

To stop useless frivolous lawsuits...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Turn your common sense on for a minute, this isn't rocket science....

As you can see, this was never installed.

 

[Auld Phart]

Sooooooo, you brilliant right wingers, the question remains.....

WHY DID GUN MANUFACTURERS FELT THE NEED TO HAVE A SPECIAL LAW PASSED JUST FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION FROM BEING SUED?

Frivolous lawsuits

 

[OKTexas]

I asked two questions, where's the answer to the other?

You're kidding, right?

No I'm not, you give them the responsibility to make these decisions, how can you deny them the information required to make them? Also you want to tell them who they can and can't deny based on your victim classes, but you still want to hold them responsible if one of your victims misuses their product. You can't have it both ways, if you give them the responsibility, you have to give them unfettered power and access to make those decisions how THEY see fit. Not so comfortable with it when it comes out of the hypothetical, are ya?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Unfortunately, the technology is still pretty lame on fingerprint security for gun users. If technology could work out the bugs and make it at least 97% fail safe, it could be one alternative.
Intelligun - Fingerprint security - The Firearm Blog

You need your gun,.
Your gun goes down,.
Your wife has a gun but you do not have her fingerprints.
What then?

Have your own back-up weapon........duh!!!

Intelligun will never be anything but a conversation piece.

Reliable biometrics with guns is still in the early stages. When it is worked out, and it will be, should be the way to go.

Should be huh? My guns have been proven to be 100% reliable, I'll think most will stay with what works. Especially if their life or families life may depend on it.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, we should always follow what lobbyists push (aka, BRIBE) congress to do (and in some instance, NOT to do) when searching for legislation to curb an abuse of the common welfare and good.

Regarding mass murders, we know that gun manufacturers (and their bought puppet, the NRA) fought and won the right to NOT be sued for the misuse of their deadly products.

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

Boy…you are stupid. So everyone but the guy who uses the gun is responsible….what an idiot….and when computers are use for computer crime….we will sue Best Buy, and Apple, and Microsoft……right?

 

[Londoner]

And if you sell your car to some clown who later drives drunk and kills someone, the victim's family should be able to sue YOU for millions in damages, right???

Nope. Liability works best when it starts with the proximate cause of the harm, i.e., the driver, or, by analogy, the shooter.

Since guns like cars have the uniquely high potential to cause death to others, they both should carry similar liability insurance.

In order to operate a car, you need a minimum level of liability insurance. This lets the market - not government - play the primary role in determining who can drive or shoot a fire arm. And don't tell me that no limits can be placed on gun ownership, because prisoners are not allowed to possess weapons in their cell. There are plenty of instances where your right to use a gun is outweighed by other factors.

Listen son. Insurance companies weigh many factors when providing auto insurance. They consider age, driving history, etc. Same for owning a gun. The insurance companies could weigh medical history (mental illness), etc., before determining the correct cost for a given individual's insurance. And if you can't get insurance because you robbed one too many liquor stores at gunpoint, than your beef is with the market.

 

[2aguy]

And if you sell your car to some clown who later drives drunk and kills someone, the victim's family should be able to sue YOU for millions in damages, right???

Pretty dumb response (as always)......Name another manufacturer...beside gun ones......who CANNOT be sued by consumers?

Everyone….

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You need your gun,.
Your gun goes down,.
Your wife has a gun but you do not have her fingerprints.
What then?

Have your own back-up weapon........duh!!!

Intelligun will never be anything but a conversation piece.

Reliable biometrics with guns is still in the early stages. When it is worked out, and it will be, should be the way to go.

Intelligun isn't biometric.

I have a biometric safe and it takes about three tries before I can successfully swipe my finger to open it. If it was a gun and needed in a split second, I'd been dead.

It's good idea, just not practical and no one would rely on it to save their life.

As for intelligun, did you know if the battery goes dead, your gun locks up. it essentially becomes a club.

I never advocated using intelligun because it is below the curve in reliability. All I am suggesting is that if and when biometrics becomes reliable, it could be a viable alternative to putting gun control into the hands of big Gov't.

I understand you're banking on "ifs". I deal in reality. In reality, biometrics are not 100% reliable. I would never have a gun for defense that was anything less than 100% reliable. What needs to be done is get big Gov't to stop stepping on our God given rights.

The best gun control advice is, use both hands.

 

[2aguy]

Connecticut (a huge gun-manufacturing state) is attempting to sue Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC, after the Newtown MASSACRE.

However, the state faces a steep uphill climb because of a decade-old federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (signed by GWB in 2005)that gives the gun industry broad immunity.

Failed. Just like the Colorado families who tried to sue the ammo manufacturers for the Colorado shooter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In order to operate a car, you need a minimum level of liability insurance.

I don't need liability insurance to buy, own, possess or operate a car on my property - I only need it if I drive on public roads.
You: Fail.

 

[2aguy]

Just about every hammer, knife, 2x4 manufacturer. Need more names?

More stupid than usual response (not an easy task for you...but, congrats)

When was the last time you heard of mass-murders....like the babies in Newtown...committed with a hammer?

Gasoline…more than a few people have been killed by arsonists…..did they sue the oil company?

 

[2aguy]

What you can't sue for is someone using it, and the weapon working as intended.

No, in CT, the gun manufacturer is being sued for allowing the sale of a weapon that was SOLELY intended to be used by soldiers in a war setting....not to kill babies.

It isn't solely for the use of soldiers. In fact, it is barely passable for that purpose, it is again a poor quality rifle for that purpose…of course you don't realize that because you are an ignorant gun grabber. And the 2nd Amendment specifically protects all military rifles since they are need to deal with the government.

 

[nat4900]

Boy…you are stupid. So everyone but the guy who uses the gun is responsible….what an idiot

Speaking of IDIOTS....where EXACTLY did I state that everyone BUT the shooter should be sued????

This is an example of how right wingers just pull out "facts" out of their asses.

 

[B. Kidd]

Have your own back-up weapon........duh!!!

Intelligun will never be anything but a conversation piece.

Reliable biometrics with guns is still in the early stages. When it is worked out, and it will be, should be the way to go.

Intelligun isn't biometric.

I have a biometric safe and it takes about three tries before I can successfully swipe my finger to open it. If it was a gun and needed in a split second, I'd been dead.

It's good idea, just not practical and no one would rely on it to save their life.

As for intelligun, did you know if the battery goes dead, your gun locks up. it essentially becomes a club.

I never advocated using intelligun because it is below the curve in reliability. All I am suggesting is that if and when biometrics becomes reliable, it could be a viable alternative to putting gun control into the hands of big Gov't.

I understand you're banking on "ifs". I deal in reality. In reality, biometrics are not 100% reliable. I would never have a gun for defense that was anything less than 100% reliable. What needs to be done is get big Gov't to stop stepping on our God given rights.

The best gun control advice is, use both hands.

Good advice if you're living in Juarez, MX. All I can say, is that the kind of country you want to live in? Because, in enough of our cities, we are almost there.

 

[nat4900]

It isn't solely for the use of soldiers. In fact, it is barely passable for that purpose, it is again a poor quality rifle for that purpose…of course you don't realize that because you are an ignorant gun grabber. And the 2nd Amendment specifically protects all military rifles since they are need to deal with the government.

Hey MORON, the suit is about whether a WAR-gun should be sold to insane idiots....like you and your ilk.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is an example of how right wingers just pull out "facts" out of their asses.

Speaking of...

No, in CT, the gun manufacturer is being sued for allowing the sale of a weapon that was SOLELY intended to be used by soldiers in a war setting.

Another example of an anti-gun loon arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.